Aren't tea-bags SUPPOSED to be highly caffeinated?
Alternative response: the overcaffinated tea-baggers I'm familiar with don't run around shouting "Unconstitutional," they run around shouting obscenities about my mother and how they're going to report me to the Xbox live moderators.
A google search for the student's name turned up numerous other hits, which were all nearly carbon copies of that same one paragraph.
Which doesn't surprise me either: Fox news only seems shitty until you check out their competitors. Then you just realize that they're all identically shitty when it comes to reporting. The personalities that Fox news has on it are definitely worse (I mean war criminal Oliver North isn't even their most obnoxious hire), but when it comes to the news, they're not significantly worse, though I'm not sure it would be possible to BE worse at it.
I regularly have ideas on my research while I'm trying to fall asleep. I have my ipad on the nightstand so that I can send myself an e-mail explaining it.
Maybe, but it would be nice if there were more details. I remember reading a slashdot news story about another teen science fair winner with some awesome result, but someone pointed out that he essentially copied someone else's PhD dissertation. Kinda made me skeptical about amazing science fair results. In this case, was he a chemical engineer? How did he even get access to pancreatic cancer urine samples?
Is the 90% accurate, faster, and far cheaper than current tests maybe because it's just a strip of paper that will always give a "You do not have pancreatic cancer" result? That sounds like it would be a lot cheaper, faster, and at least 90% accurate if you weren't selectively testing people you thought had pancreatic cancer...
I don't think the FEC matters on that issue. Since the constitution sets up a first-past-the-post, winner take all system, there will never be enough of a third party for that to come up.
We could change it so that parties wouldn't have to reach for at least half the political spectrum, allowing room for third and however many parties to spring up, but that would require a change in the constitution, which WOULD be blocked by the two parties.
Of course, I have yet to see a real problem with the two party system. It's worked thus far. I see no evidence that the two party system suppresses good people from running or that multiparty systems create great politicians. And since every democracy with more than two parties ALSO has corruption, bribery, and representatives being bought with campaign contributions or other legal bribes, I think it's pretty clear it wouldn't fix that either.
Frankly, I have no idea why so many slashdotters are convinced that a third party is so important. There are a lot of barriers to getting one, and there would be little value in doing so.
PCR is a very general tool. It has been used to study HIV, but by people other than Kary Mullis. And, other techniques are used. He has no specific expertise in HIV, and he has no expertise in virology.
Its' a bit like if the guy who made the first computer were to say that android was a waste of time and should be outlawed, having never actually so much as used Android: just because he invented computers doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about in a specific area of computing.
No, not as opposed to anything. Penguisto was making a statement that was closer to "As long as it's an engineer, that's a good candidate."
I'd vote for a lot of career politicians over Kary Mullis, and likely this tea party MIT guy.
If my choice was limited to this guy or a politically identical guy who was NOT an MIT trained engineer, I'd go with this guy, but my point is that expertise is outweighed by many other factors.
But there are a lot of former Tea Party sympathizers (read former) who wanted a dialog oriented on fiscal conservative views (not on messianic, apocalyptic socio-religious conservative views.)
I was under the impression that they didn't run around calling themselves "Tea Partiers" at this point. Too many bad connotations.
We are the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically and, through our subsidiaries and affiliates, internationally. We champion a healthy, thriving film and television industry by engaging in a variety of legislative, policy, education, technology and law enforcement initiatives.
What an organization claims it is about and what it actually IS about are often two totally separate things. So I have to ask, what is this "valid point" the tea party has? Does it really have anything to do with the constitution? Because it seems to me what they actually stand for is irrational fear of societal changes that have already happened, and zero taxes for corporations and the rich.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Having expertise in any one area does not mean one has good judgement, which is ideally what lawmakers should have. Look at nobel prize winner Kary Mullis' statements on how HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
(He didn't win his award for anything related to HIV or AIDS, by the way).
Not sure why this is the case for so many problems, but in the specific category of "Tax loopholes," adding more laws, taxes, and/or war -might- often be the smart thing to do.
I'd be at least a little in favor of the military being used against corporations that move to tax havens and send jobs overseas. Probably would have a chilling effect on the economy, sure, but it would almost be worth it to see some CEOs waterboarded.
When I was searching for the mirrors, it was funny to see in google "The world's most resilient bittorrent - The Pirate Bay" and then... it doesn't work.
Dries up? I've often heard it claimed that google plus success is critical to google, social networking is the next big thing blah blah blah. How much of that is just hype? They still get ad revenue from their search engine, still get information from gmail and where you go to from the search engine. I have a hard time believing that if they fail to be number one in social networking, all that will dry up completely.
I seem to recall similar statements about MS about various products they offer and failed at. I think I heard prognostication that if MS lost the ipod/zune war, they'd fail, that if they lost the firefox/internet explorer wars, they were done for. They seem to be not bankrupt.
I'm reminded of Taledega nights:
Ricky: What you told me that day at school for career day. You came in and you said, "If you ain't first, you're last."
Reese: Hell, Ricky, I was high when I said that! That makes no sense at all! "First or last"! I mean, you could be second, third, fourth--hell, you could even be fifth!
I'm still undecided how much cheaper it is, the price being paid from privacy of course. I know facebook is quite expensive. I have yet to see the pricetag on google plus.
I work at a lab in California. Another lab moved in down the hall. They brought their coffee maker with them, and it appeared in the break room. With a certification from Princeton that it was Carcinogen free.
A week later, it was no longer there, and they put up a note saying "Whoever stole our coffee maker, please give it back."
My guess is that it was a lawyer for the university, on nightly patrol for something that wasn't properly labeled as being likely to give you cancer. He saw the sign, muttered "Oh no no no, this will never do! HUGE LIABILITY!", took Mr. Cancer-free coffee maker out to a field, and put a bullet in it's carafe.
One problem with your conspiracy theory: having the false organization attack a pirating website isn't exactly a good way to convince people the web needs to be locked down and regulated for your own security.
Having anonymous DDOS www.army.mil would be a better way of doing that. THAT could be used to scare people who would think the military was somehow under attack.
Anonymous does that: "Oh mah gawd! They took down the army website! Well that's probably important to the army being able to kill the terrorists!!!! SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET!!!"
Slashdot Mirror
Never mind that every transgendered person I've ever met has generally considered the term to be pretty damn derogatory.
Unless you've met all of them, I wouldn't presume that the specific transgendered person in question finds it offensive.
IP over avian carriers is less fatal, though lower bandwidth and packet loss due to hawks are a problem then.
Hey now, we don't go around pointing out the flaws in YOUR cyclical reasons for being lazy and apathetic about politics!
Aren't tea-bags SUPPOSED to be highly caffeinated?
Alternative response: the overcaffinated tea-baggers I'm familiar with don't run around shouting "Unconstitutional," they run around shouting obscenities about my mother and how they're going to report me to the Xbox live moderators.
A google search for the student's name turned up numerous other hits, which were all nearly carbon copies of that same one paragraph.
Which doesn't surprise me either: Fox news only seems shitty until you check out their competitors. Then you just realize that they're all identically shitty when it comes to reporting. The personalities that Fox news has on it are definitely worse (I mean war criminal Oliver North isn't even their most obnoxious hire), but when it comes to the news, they're not significantly worse, though I'm not sure it would be possible to BE worse at it.
I regularly have ideas on my research while I'm trying to fall asleep. I have my ipad on the nightstand so that I can send myself an e-mail explaining it.
Maybe, but it would be nice if there were more details. I remember reading a slashdot news story about another teen science fair winner with some awesome result, but someone pointed out that he essentially copied someone else's PhD dissertation. Kinda made me skeptical about amazing science fair results. In this case, was he a chemical engineer? How did he even get access to pancreatic cancer urine samples?
Is the 90% accurate, faster, and far cheaper than current tests maybe because it's just a strip of paper that will always give a "You do not have pancreatic cancer" result? That sounds like it would be a lot cheaper, faster, and at least 90% accurate if you weren't selectively testing people you thought had pancreatic cancer...
I don't think the FEC matters on that issue. Since the constitution sets up a first-past-the-post, winner take all system, there will never be enough of a third party for that to come up.
We could change it so that parties wouldn't have to reach for at least half the political spectrum, allowing room for third and however many parties to spring up, but that would require a change in the constitution, which WOULD be blocked by the two parties.
Of course, I have yet to see a real problem with the two party system. It's worked thus far. I see no evidence that the two party system suppresses good people from running or that multiparty systems create great politicians. And since every democracy with more than two parties ALSO has corruption, bribery, and representatives being bought with campaign contributions or other legal bribes, I think it's pretty clear it wouldn't fix that either.
Frankly, I have no idea why so many slashdotters are convinced that a third party is so important. There are a lot of barriers to getting one, and there would be little value in doing so.
PCR is a very general tool. It has been used to study HIV, but by people other than Kary Mullis. And, other techniques are used. He has no specific expertise in HIV, and he has no expertise in virology.
Its' a bit like if the guy who made the first computer were to say that android was a waste of time and should be outlawed, having never actually so much as used Android: just because he invented computers doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about in a specific area of computing.
No, not as opposed to anything. Penguisto was making a statement that was closer to "As long as it's an engineer, that's a good candidate."
I'd vote for a lot of career politicians over Kary Mullis, and likely this tea party MIT guy.
If my choice was limited to this guy or a politically identical guy who was NOT an MIT trained engineer, I'd go with this guy, but my point is that expertise is outweighed by many other factors.
But there are a lot of former Tea Party sympathizers (read former) who wanted a dialog oriented on fiscal conservative views (not on messianic, apocalyptic socio-religious conservative views.)
I was under the impression that they didn't run around calling themselves "Tea Partiers" at this point. Too many bad connotations.
We are the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically and, through our subsidiaries and affiliates, internationally. We champion a healthy, thriving film and television industry by engaging in a variety of legislative, policy, education, technology and law enforcement initiatives.
What an organization claims it is about and what it actually IS about are often two totally separate things. So I have to ask, what is this "valid point" the tea party has? Does it really have anything to do with the constitution? Because it seems to me what they actually stand for is irrational fear of societal changes that have already happened, and zero taxes for corporations and the rich.
I think that's a bit simplistic. Having expertise in any one area does not mean one has good judgement, which is ideally what lawmakers should have. Look at nobel prize winner Kary Mullis' statements on how HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
(He didn't win his award for anything related to HIV or AIDS, by the way).
Not sure why this is the case for so many problems, but in the specific category of "Tax loopholes," adding more laws, taxes, and/or war -might- often be the smart thing to do.
I'd be at least a little in favor of the military being used against corporations that move to tax havens and send jobs overseas. Probably would have a chilling effect on the economy, sure, but it would almost be worth it to see some CEOs waterboarded.
Is it an ex post facto law though? It sounded like he hadn't actually dodged the taxes for the IPO yet.
When I was searching for the mirrors, it was funny to see in google "The world's most resilient bittorrent - The Pirate Bay" and then... it doesn't work.
I seem to recall similar statements about MS about various products they offer and failed at. I think I heard prognostication that if MS lost the ipod/zune war, they'd fail, that if they lost the firefox/internet explorer wars, they were done for. They seem to be not bankrupt.
I'm reminded of Taledega nights:
Ricky: What you told me that day at school for career day. You came in and you said, "If you ain't first, you're last."
Reese: Hell, Ricky, I was high when I said that! That makes no sense at all! "First or last"! I mean, you could be second, third, fourth--hell, you could even be fifth!
Not sure they didn't flinch. I seem to recall hearing some grumbling from investors that Zuck didn't at least tell them in advance.
I'm still undecided how much cheaper it is, the price being paid from privacy of course. I know facebook is quite expensive. I have yet to see the pricetag on google plus.
If you're asking that question, try switching from decaf.
I work at a lab in California. Another lab moved in down the hall. They brought their coffee maker with them, and it appeared in the break room. With a certification from Princeton that it was Carcinogen free.
A week later, it was no longer there, and they put up a note saying "Whoever stole our coffee maker, please give it back."
My guess is that it was a lawyer for the university, on nightly patrol for something that wasn't properly labeled as being likely to give you cancer. He saw the sign, muttered "Oh no no no, this will never do! HUGE LIABILITY!", took Mr. Cancer-free coffee maker out to a field, and put a bullet in it's carafe.
As someone who regularly tries to do science, I have to ask... "Results"? "Data"?
I read GP as a joker rather than a pedant.
Woosh typically means someone missed the joke. I think it's hopelessly optimistic to assume that Cubiclezombie was joking.
One problem with your conspiracy theory: having the false organization attack a pirating website isn't exactly a good way to convince people the web needs to be locked down and regulated for your own security.
Having anonymous DDOS www.army.mil would be a better way of doing that. THAT could be used to scare people who would think the military was somehow under attack.
Anonymous does that: "Oh mah gawd! They took down the army website! Well that's probably important to the army being able to kill the terrorists!!!! SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET!!!"
Anonymous does this: "Whatsit about pirates now?"